Opinion
December 12, 1994
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
Where a mistrial is declared without the consent of, or over the objection of the defendant, the principles of double jeopardy will bar a retrial for the same offense unless there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial (see, e.g., Matter of Enright v Seidlecki, 59 N.Y.2d 195, 200; People v Michael, 48 N.Y.2d 1, 9). In the instant case, the Trial Judge properly declared a mistrial on the ground of manifest necessity when it appeared possible that he might be called to testify as to whether or not a prosecution witness made a deal with the People in exchange for his cooperation. Moreover, we do not find that the actions of the People rise to the level of misconduct required to bar a retrial under the same indictment. Accordingly, the proceeding must be dismissed. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.